MNT: Gastrointestinal Disorders (2015


Stuckey C, Lowdon J, Howdle P. Symposium 1: Joint BAPEN and British Society of Gastroenterology Symposium on 'coelic disease: basics and controversies' Dietitians are better than clinicians in following up coelic disease. Proc Nutr Soc. 2009; 68 (3): 234-241.

PubMed ID: 19490742
Study Design:
Medical Opinion
X - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Negative NEGATIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:
This paper summarizes a debate held at the Annual Meeting of the Nutrition Society and BAPEN on November 4, 2008, titled "Dietitians are better than clinicians in following up coelic disease."
Inclusion Criteria:
Published guidelines for celiac disease that recommend regular follow-up.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not described.
Description of Study Protocol:

Not described.

Data Collection Summary:

The paper summarized key elements of follow-up for celiac disease, including rationale for involving clinicians and dietitians.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Not described.

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

  • Clinicians have a wide range of expertise and can successfully fulfill many of the recommended interventions
  • Dietitians have highly specialized knowledge in their field and can better fulfill some of the specific recommendations.
Author Conclusion:
The debate concluded that there should not be an assumption that one particular group of healthcare professionals was better than another at providing follow-up for patients with celiac disease: A team approach with a clinician and dietitian, both with expertise in celiac disease, is recommended.
Funding Source:
Other: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Reviewer Comments:
  • Search strategy for locating relevant studies was not described
  • Methods for selecting studies were not described
  • Appraisal of quality and validity of studies was not described
  • Specific treatments, interventions or exposures were not described
  • Process for data abstraction, synthesis and analaysis was not described
  • Limitations of the review were not described.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
  1. Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients? Yes
  2. Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about? Yes
  3. Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice? Yes
  4. Will the information, if true, require a change in practice? Yes
Validity Questions
  1. Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate? Yes
  2. Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described? No
  3. Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased? No
  4. Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible? No
  5. Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined? No
  6. Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered? Yes
  7. Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described? No
  8. Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included? Yes
  9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed? No
  10. Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes